My turn to complain about PSA - Davidson T206

[Ludington1]

I posted this raw card back in early March, bought it, then sent to PSA. I would have just sent it to SGC but it’s my 5-card run of the T-206 Indianapolis team and I wanted them all to be in the same slabs.

Yesterday I get the big reveal email and go check the grade, I expected it to be a 4-5, but never imagined a 2!?!?! I know nothing can be done about it, just wanted my 5 minutes to vent, thanks for listening.


Darren

[raulus]

Nice looking card!

Hard to say for sure what they saw that gave them heartburn, but looking at the images at PSA's website, it looks like there's something going on with the right edge of the green background, just above his shoulder. Not sure if that's paper loss or a stain or some scratches or wrinkles or just a relic of the printing process, but along that edge, the green is more like yellow in spots. *Maybe* that's what they saw that made them drop the grade?

Even so, it seems awfully small to get so excited about, unless it's something like scratches or creases.

[Ima Pseudonym]

I'm experiencing something similar with a T206 Nap Rucker that *clearly* looks like a 5+, but was in a PSA-2 slab when I bought it. I sent it to SGC for crossover, with a minimum SGC-3 requirement -- and, of course, they called it a 3 just so they could put it in their own holder.

In retrospect, I probably should have just cracked it and submitted it as raw. I'm certain that seeing it arrive in a holder that said "2" on it was bound to influence the SGC grader's opinion of the card. If nothing else, they wouldn't want to risk grading it a 5 and possible "missing" something that the PSA grader certainly must have seen, right? So they played it safe and increased by 1 grade, because that's defensible.

On your particular card, it's always tough to see in photos, but is there a small surface wrinkle in the upper right?

[ALBB]

Yes, 2 it is

[Ima Pseudonym]

Here's mine. I've had numerous people look at it (in person and on various forums) and nobody can really say, for sure, what caused the PSA-2 grade.

People are able to pick out a couple of really nit-picky things, but they're the kind of things that would cause it to be a 5 instead of a 7. They aren't the kind of things that would really justify a 2 or even a 3.

I have looked at it under magnification several times and there isn't a single crease/wrinkle that I've been able to find.

The frustrating part is that, no matter what, there is absolutely no way that you can get the grader to explain WHY they came to their conclusion so you're just left, not knowing, forever. I told them I'd pay them double the fee if I could get an explanation, but only received a standard form response from them.

[Bigdaddy]

Just an opinion, but you should not have to look at a card under magnification to see why it is graded 3 or below. The magnifying glass should be reserved for seeing the difference between 8, 9 and 10s.

Nice cards, fellas.

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Just an opinion, but you should not have to look at a card under magnification to see why it is graded 3 or below. The magnifying glass should be reserved for seeing the difference between 8, 9 and 10s.

Nice cards, fellas.

That's kind of my feeling as well.

[Gorditadogg]

Yeah, it is frustrating when you can't figure out why PSA or SGC gave your card a low grade.

Sometimes, there are stains, sometimes little scuffs. I had one card that was wavy and probably was over-soaked. I couldn't even tell when it was raw, but when I got it back in the holder, I could see the waves looking from the side.

Then again, maybe they are just f*ing with you.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[balltrash]

Any chance that card was soaked off a backing? Color variations on the back may be some residue.

Originally Posted by Ima Pseudonym

Here's mine. I've had numerous people look at it (in person and on various forums) and nobody can really say, for sure, what caused the PSA-2 grade.

People are able to pick out a couple of really nit-picky things, but they're the kind of things that would cause it to be a 5 instead of a 7. They aren't the kind of things that would really justify a 2 or even a 3.

I have looked at it under magnification several times and there isn't a single crease/wrinkle that I've been able to find.

The frustrating part is that, no matter what, there is absolutely no way that you can get the grader to explain WHY they came to their conclusion so you're just left, not knowing, forever. I told them I'd pay them double the fee if I could get an explanation, but only received a standard form response from them.

[sacentaur]

Originally Posted by Ima Pseudonym

Here's mine. I've had numerous people look at it (in person and on various forums) and nobody can really say, for sure, what caused the PSA-2 grade.

People are able to pick out a couple of really nit-picky things, but they're the kind of things that would cause it to be a 5 instead of a 7. They aren't the kind of things that would really justify a 2 or even a 3.

I have looked at it under magnification several times and there isn't a single crease/wrinkle that I've been able to find.

The frustrating part is that, no matter what, there is absolutely no way that you can get the grader to explain WHY they came to their conclusion so you're just left, not knowing, forever. I told them I'd pay them double the fee if I could get an explanation, but only received a standard form response from them.

Great looking card (I’ll take it

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by balltrash

Any chance that card was soaked off a backing? Color variations on the back may be some residue.

Maybe. I've considered that possibility based on the lighter area below the word "subjects" where it might have been glued/putty'd to a page or something. There's no visible residue under magnification, just a slight discoloration.

But, again, it's presumption. Discoloration is typical for every 115 year old card.

Here's a 3 that I recently bought... now *that* is back staining!

[Ludington1]

Thanks everyone for commiserating with me, I (kinda) feel better. The card does have the slight color shift or bleed along that top-right edge, but definitely no creases or other surface damage at all. I’m really disappointed with this one.

Darren

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by Ludington1

Thanks everyone for commiserating with me, I (kinda) feel better. The card does have the slight color shift or bleed along that top-right edge, but definitely no creases or other surface damage at all. I’m really disappointed with this one.

Darren

If there's no wrinkle, then I don't understand the grade at all. The mildly sloppy registration issue should take it down a little bit, but not all the way down to a 2. I see worse 4's every single day, in both major grading slabs.

[perezfan]

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

[Ludington1]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

Great perspective… I just recently got back into collecting when my son found my T206 cards that I collected as a kid in the late 80s. We decided that collecting the Indianapolis pre-war cards would be a great way to hunt and not get caught up in the modern madness. The Davidson is the 5th of 5 players in the T206 set for us and we’re working on the Old Judge cards now. So the grade really doesn’t matter at all. Thanks!

Darren

[Ima Pseudonym]

Meanwhile, there's stuff like this floating around out there (this was graded July 2023) lol

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

I agree with you when it comes to modern grading vs. grading from many years ago; but for the most part, the wife and I guessed pretty accurately on most of the cards in my recent submission.

The only real exception was the 1952 Redman cards, which graded significantly below where we both thought. I was pleasantly surprised on the '55s, but my wife called those ones perfectly.

We both guessed 4 on Rucker because, after thinking about it, we figured the new grader would have the fact that PSA already graded it a 2 in the back of his mind and wouldn't go too far out on a limb to disagree with that previous grade, for fear of making a mistake.

The biggest problem with grading is that its all completely subjective, and the standards vary greatly from one grader to the next. They're like MLB umpires -- some are pretty good at adhering to the standards, while others are Angel Hernandez.

[hammertime]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to PSA (and SGC) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and Collectors (the company) has now dragged SGC into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the Registry and Pricing Comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... not a fictitious number on a slab.

Completely agree!

[YankeeCollector]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Just an opinion, but you should not have to look at a card under magnification to see why it is graded 3 or below. The magnifying glass should be reserved for seeing the difference between 8, 9 and 10s.

Nice cards, fellas.

+1

[YankeeCollector]

Originally Posted by perezfan

anyone sending vintage and pre-war cards to psa (and sgc) these days should expect a grade 2 points lower than in the entire history of third party grading. They've clearly moved the goalposts, and collectors (the company) has now dragged sgc into this nightmare as well.

5 years ago, those cards both graded 5 or better. They have effectively rendered the registry and pricing comps meaningless. Go by what your own eyes tell you.... Not a fictitious number on a slab.

100%

[Beercan collector]

The card companies are getting us trained - we’re trying to figure out why a card is a PSA 2 - light discoloration ? Tiny print dots ? Hidden wrinkles ?
Microscopic surface wear ? Imperfect centering ? registration ? These are all the things that used to be (& should be) allowed on 5s .. even 6s

[mantleman]

Here is a 1967 "Topps" Mantle graded a PSA 6 with very obvious paper loss on the reverse.

I say "Topps" because the card is actually an O-pee-chee, so it was mislabeled as well.....lol.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

The card companies are getting us trained - we’re trying to figure out why a card is a PSA 2 - light discoloration ? Tiny print dots ? Hidden wrinkles ?
Microscopic surface wear ? Imperfect centering ? registration ? These are all the things that used to be (& should be) allowed on 5s .. even 6s

The only counterpoint to this line of thinking is the frenzy that comes when a buyer around here is trying to negotiate a lower price on something in the BST. The mountain of defects they can suddenly identify in pursuit of that lower price is a real miracle to behold, even on cards that are seemingly pristine.

For that matter, a similar dynamic plays out when we are suspicious that a card has been overgraded or a submitter is getting preferential treatment from the grading companies.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by mantleman

Here is a 1967 "Topps" Mantle graded a PSA 6 with very obvious paper loss on the reverse.

I say "Topps" because the card is actually an O-pee-chee, so it was mislabeled as well.....lol.

Guessing this is an old label/grade?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by raulus

The only counterpoint to this line of thinking is the frenzy that comes when a buyer around here is trying to negotiate a lower price on something in the BST. The mountain of defects they can suddenly identify in pursuit of that lower price is a real miracle to behold, even on cards that are seemingly pristine.

For that matter, a similar dynamic plays out when we are suspicious that a card has been overgraded or a submitter is getting preferential treatment from the grading companies.

When they go to sell that same card later, I wonder how many of those defects are mentioned in the sales post.

"...see pictures for condition..."

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

The card companies are getting us trained - we’re trying to figure out why a card is a PSA 2 - light discoloration ? Tiny print dots ? Hidden wrinkles ?
Microscopic surface wear ? Imperfect centering ? registration ? These are all the things that used to be (& should be) allowed on 5s .. even 6s

Yep

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Guessing this is an old label/grade?

Probably. But even if it is, there's still no justification. Why the need to "move the goalposts" 2 full points in recent years?

[YankeeCollector]

I have come to the point that PSA should only label cards as

Authentic - Let eye appeal determine the price.
Authentic Altered
Not Authentic

Their grading 1-10 sucks and is inconsistent. Their numbers mean absolutely nothing. There are 5s that should be 2s and 2s that should be 5s. Its a joke!
When you pay so much $$ for a grade, they owe a duty to the customer to fairly assess the card. They are cocky, careless and wildly inconsistent.

And now a monopoly since they bought SGC.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by YankeeCollector

I have come to the point that PSA should only label cards as

Authentic - Let eye appeal determine the price.
Authentic Altered
Not Authentic

Their grading 1-10 sucks and is inconsistent. Their numbers mean absolutely nothing. There are 5s that should be 2s and 2s that should be 5s. Its a joke!
When you pay so much $$ for a grade, they owe a duty to the customer to fairly assess the card. They are cocky, careless and wildly inconsistent.

And now a monopoly since they bought SGC.

Could not agree more (with every point you made).

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Probably. But even if it is, there's still no justification. Why the need to "move the goalposts" 2 full points in recent years?

Oh I agree with you there. My thought is there must have been some sort of formal or informal decision when cards flooded in during the pandemic to say we need to be harder on grades so we don’t water down mid and high end grades too much. 2 grade points is being generous to the change. Feels like they have moved the goal post 2.5-3 grades down.

[Bridwell]

It could be a PSA error but more likely it has to do with glue residue. PSA is really picky about a little glue residue on the back. The Davidson and Rucker both may have been removed from an album at some point, but a little residue might remain. If you can feel any grit on the raw card with your finger, then you might get a PSA 2 on an EX or better card. Sometimes the slight yellowing on the back can be evidence of residue from glue or maybe some other substance on the card. It is best to soak it again or just send it to SGC where they don't seem to mind about that, although SGC is picky about any paper loss on the back. I have a few successes on T & E cards where a 2nd soak led to a PSA 2 becoming a PSA 5 or 6.

[toledo_mudhen]

Both PSA & SGC are tighter than tree bark right now......

I sent a bunch of "easy sixes" in to SGC a month ago.

They all came back as 2s.

Been collecting cards and sending cards in for grading for over 30 years now.

However - I am now DONE playing their graded card game.

I hope both companies finally end up scrounging around for "Allowance Money" from kids wanting to get their YuGiOh's graded.........

Consider me completely irritated with both of them -

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

Both PSA & SGC are tighter than tree bark right now......

I sent a bunch of "easy sixes" in to SGC a month ago.

They all came back as 2s.

Been collecting cards and sending cards in for grading for over 30 years now.

However - I am now DONE playing their graded card game.

I hope both companies finally end up scrounging around for "Allowance Money" from kids wanting to get their YuGiOh's graded.........

Consider me completely irritated with both of them -

Same...

The stagnant submission of mine that they've been sitting on forever is my last.

[mantleman]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Probably. But even if it is, there's still no justification. Why the need to "move the goalposts" 2 full points in recent years?

Yes, it was an old label!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Same...

The stagnant submission of mine that they've been sitting on forever is my last.

How long has yours been there? I have 4 tickets that have been at PSA for almost 6 months now.